The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-07-22
ASSESSMENT REDUCTION. |
A LOOSE sYSTEM WHICH LOSES
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.
Chairman Slaughter Determined to
Correct the Practice-A Willy
Enemy.

things are now run We lose millions OF
dollars In valuation annually: and II
hurts the city, not only nJislly, but
her future prospects. We ought to
have at least s35, 000, 900 Of taxable
property In Memphis. instead OF $24,-
100000. One tract OF land especially,
sold recently for over 100000, has
been taxed at only $1,000. But that
is not what desired to ventilste. 1t
Is the custom now to read only the
recommendation accompsny ing Q pc
tition for reduction, as the magistrates
appear to be agreed on that mode OF
procedure. II there Is no recommen.
daiion, before the petition IL read some
one will move Its reference to the
magistrates Of the ward or district In
which the property is situated. Thus
II Ia that, no matter what comes In,
&C urtesy almost invariably carries It
through, when not exceeding Q half
dozen members know whether or
not the request Is just. / have
been peculiarly impressed with
the recklsssness OF this course by
petition which came before the court
last Tuesday. II was from q woman,
who Is aourishing from Q worldly
standpoint, but whose name 10 with
held out Of consideration and respect
for her sex. The petition Ia In the
hands OF the clerk, and you are at
liberty TO examine Il IS q fair sample"
The reporter visited the office oil
CLERK Qulgley, and was handed Q
paper OF which the following Ia copy,
with oil names and location OF prop.
srty omitted, for the reason that IL
may be her first ofiense and because
she Ia q woman:
To the Honorable worshipful County Court
Of shelby County, Tenn:
Your petitioner, -, would re.
specially show that she Is the widow
OF =. that she is the owner OF lots
Nos. -, OF -, subdivision OF the
east side Of - street, In the -
civil district In shelby county, Tenn.
That said lots have front on the east
side OF - street OF 200 feet and 1870
feet deep. There Is q small store there
on built many years sg,, and small
cottage much out OF repair and of very
little value. In 1885 aud 1885 this
properly was assessed In petitioners
name at the sum Of $500 and the tsIss
thereon have always been promptly
paid. Petitioner would further show
that the Assessor for the year 1887
made mistake, 10 correct which pc.
titioner now rocks relief In this honor
able court. The said property for the
year 1887 Is assessed $1,000, which 10
very much higher, according to It's
value, than other property was assessed
In that vicinity and In the city and
county generally. Petitioner would
show that $500 would be fair valua.
ton Of said property as other property
Ia assessed for the year. IL 10 assessed
In petitioners name and described a.
above set forth. Petitioner prays thut
the said assessment Tor the year 1887
be corrected and that $500 be fixed a
proper valuation OF the same for
taxation.
Subscribed and sworn TO before me
this - day OF June, 1887.
THOMAS FLEMING. ]. p.
IL is recommended by tue two mag
istrates Of the district and three good
citizens who probably do not live In
the peighborhood.
"As I understand from parties liv.
Ing near thisiwonan," resumed CHAIR.
man Slaughter, ITO begin with she ID
not q widow. On the lots referred 10
there isa two story frame grocery
store, With ample room In which she
and her family live. Adjoining the
grocery 10 q neat cottage which she
rents for t26 per month. Even were
there no improvements at all on the
lot, IL would sell readily for $3.50
The application must have been
written by . lawyer. as II 10 calculated,
on lie face, 10 clip Through like the
othera However. Il was rejected"
such good luokr
"By no means. Property situated
Ave miles and farther from the city 4
taxed for equally rs much o. Il
would bring n sold At the courthous,
door. I call N mind one sale whicr
went further than this. A large irac
had been subdivided and improved
and when kuocted down al auction IL
front OF the courthouse brought lea
than the amount at which IL lad beer
valued on the tex b oks."
How do you propose 10 proceed Il
bring the reform aboutf"
IL have been thinking q good dea
70 10 the beet methods, and dnally de
cided upon something Of this kind:
Ordered by this court, that hereai
ter no reduction In the assessment O
properly be made unless the same b,
recommended by at least two citissn
living adjoining or near the propert,
mentioned In the petition, anC
that the said eltlsens 20 recommend
ing shall be property owners sn'
prompt Taxpayers, aud said recon
mepdatlon shall be sworn TO-"
will that accomplish the purpos'
or oil the billf"
II am afraid not, completely, but q
IL q starter. / had q similar one pass
ed by the court three or four year
ago, but al q succeeding term, when
VAS not present, Justice Winter
slipped In and had u retcinasd. hi
can be found In the regular records O
. the court"
Tbs reporter again visited In
clerks Office, and found the proof uu
: der date Of Tuesday, October IL, 1873:
> Ordered by the court, TIA, no o.
: plicstion Tor the reduction OF any a
. sessment Of taxes on real estate sha
!. be determined by this court, unles
q the same 10 sworn 10 by the owner Q
2 the property, or by his proper
4 auth rlssd asent or attorney, who's
a enthohty shall b. fully stated In On
shidsvit; nor unless said affidavit
Supported by the an lavits OF thre
persons owning property adj Dining
A or In the immediate vicinity Of Oh
. property In question, showing whs
property they own In raid vlclnit,
J. and a. al they had paid all OF IN
y tsxcs due thereon for year or yeai
. In question aud that they approve {
o the application for redsction and a.
J. that II shall be allowed; nor unt
u such application aud the proof q,
q oompsnysng II has been submitted I
p and passed upon by the justices ,
. the civil district In which the prof.
III / L.. a..llaa L. .lla at..l ~